Use of emblems only for anointed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nomex

Well-known member
However, only Jehovah can judge a true heart. If you decided to take a bite of bread on the memorial of Jesus death, and have faith in Jesus Christ, I doubt Jehovah would strike you down if you are not an invited person. Considering that in this thread alone it shows so much confusion, as to how the emblems should be perceived, I'm sure Jehovah realizes this, do you not? In fact if he wanted it to be more clear, I suppose he would have made it so? So you do you Nomex, who am I to say anything else?
I appreciate that. To be clear however, I don't think I will be partaking anytime in the future unless I had some better and clearer understanding. Why change now after 50 plus years? I am simply saying I'm not sure it is as clear as WT makes it out to be, that is to say, it's open and shut. I guess my real dilemma, is that Jesus sacrifice is primarily for the benefit of earth dwelling mankind. We are and will be the main beneficiaries as I commented above, so it seems to me, logically speaking, something is missing. Regardless I am not advocating that anyone should just start partaking. Maybe I should have made that clear.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
John was the last pillar that held back the full apostasy. Referring to texts after his death is the same as referring to any other Christendom text.
Polycarp and Pappias generation would have been the last. (John had disciples of course including him.) Polycarp was bishop of one of the seven congregations of the opening chapters of Revelation. Laodicea had a bad attitude they rejected Revelation as scripture because it offended them but some of the other congregations in Asia Minor stood up to the bishops of Rome for centuries refusing to adopt the corruption they wanted to impose all the way until Constantine brought the power of the Roman state to bear behind the popes. Essentially the church fathers amd writings before 190 AD or so are good to consult with the exception of Ignatius letters half of which are forgeries the other half likely heavily tampered with in the following centuries by the catholic church.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
John was the last pillar that held back the full apostasy. Referring to texts after his death is the same as referring to any other Christendom text.
Inspired scriptures only are what should shape our belief, no question about it. John warned about apostates in his own letters, and we know how to recognize them because of his descriptions. Some of the writings after John were penned by people who were acquainted with congregations that were established in apostles time and possibly with John himself, even if only indirectly. I'm not sure of the details. Maybe some of them were even annointed; it's possible. Their experiences inform us of how things went. It was easy for apostasy and bad practices to creep in after the apostles. Lot of those practices persist today and some are very subtle. It's not so black and white.
 

evw

Well-known member
Obviously, no human can possibly reign with Christ in heaven just because Jesus made a covenant with them. First, in order to be sharers with Christ in divine nature the prospective Kingdom heirs must be born again. They must be born from the spirit and circumcised in heart. How does that happen? They are taken into the new covenant mediated by Christ.
For the record I am NOT of the anointed and feel fine at the place where I belong; the earth. That doesn't change the fact that I do have some questions, if you don't mind, without wanting to "offend" or embarrass anyone.
It is clear to me that the Lord's Supper should be commemorated once a year, whereby precisely 1 Cor. 11:27 indicates to me that this meal is a special one, especially considering what Paul says next in verse 34: 'If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment.'
But what I can think of with the other quoted texts with 'keep doing this as often as you eat it', that people realize that it is through Jesus that there is food at all on the table. But that aside.

'They are taken into the new covenant mediated by Christ.'
Question: But isn't that at the time they are being sealed?

Furthermore:
What strikes me now in the text Luke 22 verse 14: When at last the hour had come, he sat down at the table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them: “I have desired to eat this Passover with YOU before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will eat it no more until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God," that at this Passover meal NO "foreigners" were present, but only the apostles, and after Judas was sent away He made the new covenant with them. Still, I can imagine, since the sealing only happens when Jesus comes again, that the great crowd of anointed ones will/could also be called during (or just before) the sealing. So it could be possible that the symbols should also be used by the other sheep.
(Also remembering that 'we' have washed our 'robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.' Revelation 7:14; yes I know we are before the throne, so on earth).

Why? Because John 6 verses 53-56 says: “Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no LIFE IN YOURSELVES. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has ETERNAL LIFE and I will raise him [from the dead] on the last day; for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.
In Greek, two different words are used for LIFE after using the symbols:
symbolen:

1. ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς meaning ‘life in themselves
and
2. ζωὴν αἰώνιον meaning ‘eternal life

As far as I have learned from the WT teaching, the first is for the anointed and the second is for the other sheep. So could it be that the other sheep actually have to use from the symbols too?
(I now realize that this distinction could have been deliberately introduced by the 'first' Governing Body under the influence of the Free Masons for again more control, since there is seems no Biblical guideline to count or record the number? )
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
Finished kailedy gospel (now that im done going to move on to the kohlbrin bible) in this verse on Jesus trial it agrees with those Barker book excerpts I pasted earlier on the jews being divided on Passover observance because of disagreement on the calender solar or lunar etc.

34 It was now, for many, Passover Eve - not all keeping it at the same
time, for this was in dispute. Therefore, many who could have spoken
for Jesus, being righteous men, went to make their preparations for
the festival. Some thought he would be set free when it was over, but
most knew in their hearts he would not be released.
 

Shekinah

Well-known member
I am presently unsure whether it's scriptual for the non anointed to pass the emblems. I am still conflicted in regards to whether we all should partake as Jesus died for us all and we all under a new covenant. The covenant of course of different with the chosen then the rest of the flock however, we are all under a new covenant as Jesus sacrifice abolished the old and ushered in the new. I have done independent research aside from WT teachings and I have discovered that passing the plate is connected to a satanic ritual. Noone knows for sure if they are anointed or not and even if they receive signs from Jehovah that they are being considered it is not guaranteed. I myself personally have had some signs from Jehovah but I am not going to say I am a chosen one. Until Jehovah seals me and sends his son I won't know for sure.
I've been having this discussion today with a few brothers many of us feel the same.
 
J

Jehovahsloyalchild

Guest
I've been having this discussion today with a few brothers many of us feel the same.
Alan Ford has made some very compelling use of scripture that would seem to support all partaking. It is something I am very conflicted about..I have faith Jehovah will provide the answer before the day of the memorial service.
 

barry

Well-known member
What strikes me now in the text Luke 22 verse 14: When at last the hour had come, he sat down at the table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them: “I have desired to eat this Passover with YOU before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will eat it no more until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God," that at this Passover meal NO "foreigners" were present, but only the apostles, and after Judas was sent away He made the new covenant with them.


I was re-reading the part in John 13 and a text caught my eye, which I hadn't really noticed before.
John 13:18 -
"I am not talking about all of you; I know the ones I have chosen. But this was so that the scripture might be fulfilled:+ ‘The one who was eating my bread has lifted his heel against me.".

This text indicates that it was known that someone close to Jesus would betray him.
The interesting part is that it is mentioned 'eating my bread'.
If this would be just regular bread I don't think this would be mentioned, but if you read the context it was all during the passover/Memorial. So I'm inclined to think this is referring to the bread from the memorial.

The text from John 13:18 has 2 references in our study Bible:
Ps 41:9, which is the quote from Jesus and the other reference is from Matth 26:23 where it is mentioned:
"In reply he said: “The one who dips his hand with me into the bowl is the one who will betray me"
This is directly referring to Judas.

So with this I think it is referring to the fact the Judas partook while he was planning to betray Jesus.

This would match up with the events in Luke 22, where Judas is identified after the passing of bread/wine and before the covenant for a kingdom.
The other accounts in Matthew and Mark also mention Judas being identified before the actual passing of bread and wine, but in these there is no mention that he was sent out or was not present.
 

barry

Well-known member
I did some additional check on the text in John 13:18 since in the NWT all these references are translated as bread.
Using the Kingdom interlinear I wanted to check the original Greek words used.

The word bread used in John 13:18 in Greek: ἄρτον (eating my bread/feed on my bread)
The word bread used in John 13:26,27 in Greek: ψωμίον (dipping the bread/morsel)

Now I compared this with the other accounts where the bread is used in relation to the Lord's evening meal:

Matth 26:26 loaf: ἄρτον
Mark 14:22 loaf: ἄρτον
Luke 22:19 loaf: ἄρτον

All of the above is the bread/loaf used at the actual Memorial.

The accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke also refer to Judas dipping in the bowl, but in these case there is no word used for bread/loaf/morsel or so.

So the word that is used to describe Judas eating Jesus bread is the same as the word used in connection with the Memorial.
 

evw

Well-known member
I did some additional check on the text in John 13:18 since in the NWT all these references are translated as bread.
Using the Kingdom interlinear I wanted to check the original Greek words used.

The word bread used in John 13:18 in Greek: ἄρτον (eating my bread/feed on my bread)
The word bread used in John 13:26,27 in Greek: ψωμίον (dipping the bread/morsel)

Now I compared this with the other accounts where the bread is used in relation to the Lord's evening meal:

Matth 26:26 loaf: ἄρτον
Mark 14:22 loaf: ἄρτον
Luke 22:19 loaf: ἄρτον

All of the above is the bread/loaf used at the actual Memorial.

The accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke also refer to Judas dipping in the bowl, but in these case there is no word used for bread/loaf/morsel or so.

So the word that is used to describe Judas eating Jesus bread is the same as the word used in connection with the Memorial.
I wonder, is there perhaps any conclusion related to the topic, after all the searching? ;)
 

David Peter

Well-known member
I was looking for some info on how it was observed in the early Christianity and found that Justin Martyr in chapters 66 and 67 of his First Apology makes it clear that the early Christians shared the bread and wine on a regular basis. He wrote it between AD 155-157. It seems to confirm that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11, when he says "whenever you eat" means more often than once a year. The word rendered whenever in NWT is ὁσάκις (hosakis).
According to Strong's concordance

So far my research is pointing towards it not being annual.

One of the early controversies over the issue of when to observe the Lord's Evening meal - took place about the year 155 C.E; between Polycarp of Smyrna ,a representative of the Asian congregations - and Anicetus of Rome, representing the Roman congregations.

Polycarp was for the annual Nisan 14 , he based his stand on the authority of the Apostles before him , But Anicetus believed that the Lord's Evening meal should be observed weekly on Sunday, and appealed to the custom of previous elders in Rome .

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in a letter ; That "Neither could Anicetus [ of Rome ] persuade Polycarp to observe weekly, nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to change to the annual Nisan 14 date .

[ You can find this info - in the March 15 1994 Watchtower pg.5 ]

the Watchtower [ November 15 1989 pg.21 ] does a positive article on Polycarp , saying the Apostle John was one of his teachers .

the Watchtower [ March 15 1992 pg. 28 ] does a positive article on Justin Martyr .


What i noticed about these men is - both Polycarp and Justin Martyr were contemporaries , although Polycarp was older and taught by the Apostle John . Justin Martyr could have been taught by Polycarp . So both these men were just after the time of the Apostles and both Men were martyred only ten years apart . Polycarp was burned at the stake. in 155 C.E. and Justin Martyr was beheaded in Rome in 165 C.E.

Although the Watchtowers of [ Oct. 1 1989 Pg.6 ] & [ July 15 2002 ] say's Justin Martyr believed in Hellfire .
and the [ Awake November 22, 1976 pg. 27 ] -say's that he believed Jesus died on a Cross.

The other thing i noticed was about the controversy over the observance of the Lord's Evening Meal that took place around 155 C.E.
Where was a governing body to decide this issue for all congregations ? It didn't seem to exist then .

Personally - I would go with authority of the apostles for Nisan 14, rather then the custom of the elders in Rome for a weekly observance.

But there seems to have been more freedom to decide these things for each congregation.
 
Last edited:

Cristo

Well-known member
I wonder, is there perhaps any conclusion related to the topic, after all the searching? ;)
I think right now at this time it seems as though it is a conscious matter. Certainly Jehovah knows that there is some confusion regarding this, if he had wanted it to be more clear it would have been. Therefore, simply the fact that we give honor and respect to this most important occasion goes light years beyond what the world does regarding their holidays and traditions to false gods. As I said to Nomex, who are we to judge anybody for doing it weekly, or annually, or if they partake or don't? Only God can judge a true heart, and when it's time all things will be settled no doubt.
 

Shekinah

Well-known member
Alan Ford has made some very compelling use of scripture that would seem to support all partaking. It is something I am very conflicted about..I have faith Jehovah will provide the answer before the day of the memorial service.
I too will wait on Jehovah I've waited this long and everything else is being made clear, so no doubt this will too dear sister.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
One of the early controversies over the issue of when to observe the Lord's Evening meal - took place about the year 155 C.E; between Polycarp of Smyrna ,a representative of the Asian congregations - and Anicetus of Rome, representing the Roman congregations.

Polycarp was for the annual Nisan 14 , he based his stand on the authority of the Apostles before him , But Anicetus believed that the Lord's Evening meal should be observed weekly on Sunday, and appealed to the custom of previous elders in Rome .

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in a letter ; That "Neither could Anicetus [ of Rome ] persuade Polycarp to observe weekly, nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to change to the annual Nisan 14 date .

[ You can find this info - in the March 15 1994 Watchtower pg.5 ]

the Watchtower [ November 15 1989 pg.21 ] does a positive article on Polycarp , saying the Apostle John was one of his teachers .

the Watchtower [ March 15 1992 pg. 28 ] does a positive article on Justin Martyr .


What i noticed about these men is - both Polycarp and Justin Martyr were contemporaries , although Polycarp was older and taught by the Apostle John . Justin Martyr could have been taught by Polycarp . So both these men were just after the time of the Apostles and both Men were martyred only ten years apart . Polycarp was burned at the stake. in 155 C.E. and Justin Martyr was beheaded in Rome in 165 C.E.

Although the Watchtowers of [ Oct. 1 1989 Pg.6 ] & [ July 15 2002 ] say's Justin Martyr believed in Hellfire .
and the [ Awake November 22, 1976 pg. 27 ] -say's that he believed Jesus died on a Cross.

The other thing i noticed was about the controversy over the observance of the Lord's Evening Meal that took place around 155 C.E.
Where was a governing body to decide this issue for all congregations ? It didn't seem to exist then .

Personally - I would go with authority of the apostles for Nisan 14, rather then the custom of the elders in Rome for a weekly observance.

But there seems to have been more freedom to decide these things for each congregation.
Thank you very much for this answer (and citations). I've looked around from multiple perspectives and kind of got fatigued and decided to lay it down for a bit. It sure is not a very clear matter. I looked a little more into Justin and Polycarp I started to think that this might be a conscience matter after all, but Polycarp seems to have more weight to me right now, for the fact that he was John's disciple. But I also don't want to disregard Paul's letters in which he mentions the practice as he was the one sent to Romans gentiles. I am just aware of the fact that there was also the circumcision issue that was unclear to Jewish Christians and Paul had to go there to correct their understanding. So still unclear to me but I'm inclined to agree with what Cristo said:
Therefore, simply the fact that we give honor and respect to this most important occasion goes light years beyond what the world does regarding their holidays and traditions to false gods.
Also this
Only God can judge a true heart, and when it's time all things will be settled no doubt.

So far I've attended it annually in JW setting and will continue to do until/if I get a better understanding.
Also, I wanna say that I didn't mean to detract attention from barry's original post of who should partake, so I'd like to apologize for creating this side issue. The important issue here is who partakes?
 
Last edited:

alan ford

Well-known member
I think right now at this time it seems as though it is a conscious matter. Certainly Jehovah knows that there is some confusion regarding this, if he had wanted it to be more clear it would have been. Therefore, simply the fact that we give honor and respect to this most important occasion goes light years beyond what the world does regarding their holidays and traditions to false gods. As I said to Nomex, who are we to judge anybody for doing it weekly, or annually, or if they partake or don't? Only God can judge a true heart, and when it's time all things will be settled no doubt.
Thanks for this Cristo! Your answers are always so nicely expressed and "seasoned with salt" It's much appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top